Orissa High Court
Chinta @ Bijay Kumar Mohanty vs State Of Odisha on 18 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO.195 OF 2023
Chinta @ Bijay Kumar Mohanty .... Petitioner
Sk.Zafarulla, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr.S.S.Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
Order 18.04.2023
No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical) mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner in the matter of
admission in this Revision. Peruse the impugned judgments of
conviction and sentence. The revision is admitted.
As Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has
all the depositions of the witnesses and the documents admitted in
evidence and marked exhibits; on consent of the learned counsel
for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State, the Revision is
heard on merit.
3. Hearing being concluded; Order as follows:
Later
1. The Petitioner being the accused faced the trial in the court
of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. Case
No.33/193 of 2015 being charged for commission of offence
under section 341/324/326/307/452/506 of the IPC. The Trial
Court by judgment dated 13.01.2022 had held the Petitioner for
committing the offence under section 324/326/452 of the IPC.
Accordingly the Trial Court sentenced the Petitioner to undergo
// 2 //
simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under section
324 of the IPC; simple imprisonment for one year and fine of
Rs.3000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen
(15) days for the offence under section 452 of the IPC and to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and pay fine of
Rs.5000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
month for the offence under section 326 of the IPC with the
stipulation that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.
2. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the above judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court
preferred Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2022 which came to be heard
by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore. By judgment
dated 31.03.2023, the Appellate Court has held the Petitioner
guilty for commission of offence under section 324/452 of the
IPC. Accordingly, the Appellate Court has imposed sentence of
simple imprisonment for six (6) months and fine of Rs.6000/- in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, on each
count.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner from the beginning
instead of challenging the finding of the Appellate Court holding
the Petitioner guilty for commission of offence under section
324/452 of the IPC confines his submission on the question of
sentence. He submits that the Petitioner, who is now aged about
32 years, has spent a period of about 8 years by running after the
case and besides the period that he spent in custody prior to his
release on bail, he has suffered huge mental agony as well as the
sufferings on other fronts. He submitted that the Petitioner is now
living with his family and all his family members are dependent
on him and, therefore, when the Appellate Court has altered the
// 3 //
conviction of the Petitioner from one under section 326 of the IPC
to section 324 of the IPC, he contended that at that stage,
imposition of sentence of imprisonment which would again put
the Petitioner behind the bar for some period would not be in the
interest of justice and serve its ends. Accordingly, he contended
that the term substantive sentence fixed by the Appellate Court
stands too harsh and needs appropriate reduction.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the sentence
imposed upon the Petitioner by the Appellate Court by reducing
the sentence as had been imposed by the Trial Court is just and
proper.
5. Taking into account the submissions made and on going
through the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view
that at this stage, when the Petitioner has faced the mental agony
for a period of about 8 years and also had been behind the bar for
some time; in the changed situation, when he is living with his
family members, who are completely dependent on him; the
period of simple imprisonment for six months if reduced to the
period already undergone with direction to the Petitioner to pay
fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months, on each count of the offence under section 324/452 of
the IPC would be just and appropriate.
6. With the above modification only as to the order of
sentence, the Revision stands disposed of.
(D.Dash)
Judge
Gitanjali
